Confidential information and cybersecurity
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Confidential information and cybersecurity

Businesses that rely on confidential information for a competitive advantage need to take practical steps on cybersecurity, and prepare for the long-term ramifications of the proposed EU trade secrets directive

EU flag

There is a divergence in terminology and the protection regime for confidential information in the EU. For example, in England a trade secret is seen as a subset of confidential information protected under contract or the common law of breach of confidence; while in Germany confidential information is treated as a general concept, the protection of which comes from various statutory provisions including criminal law.

This affects cross-border research and development activities, which often lead to innovation, and those who rely heavily on confidential information for competitiveness. The protection accorded to confidential information is directed at its acquisition, disclosure and use. The cyber-attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment is a recent example.

All this is why many welcome the proposed trade secrets directive which, albeit with some fine-tuning, will harmonise the law to provide some reassurance to businesses.

The proposed directive is awaiting the decision of the EU parliament and is set to go before the plenary on November 24. Its adoption and implementation is still some time away, but now is the time to start planning for the ramifications as well as putting appropriate measures in place to safeguard confidential information.

“In the short term changes in law will be minor, but in the long term it will be quite big as the EU Court of Justice gets involved in its interpretation,” says Anthony Trenton, one of the speakers at a seminar to be held this evening at the London offices of WilmerHale.

The seminar, titled ‘Protecting Confidential Information’, will discuss the current state of the law; the proposed EU trade secrets directive; and cybersecurity. Trevor Cook, Klaus Schubert and Trenton will open the seminar with an overview of the law in England and Germany, and a discussion on how the directive will change law and practice in this area - issues such as dealing with licences and employees are expected to be covered.

The session will end with Robert S. Mueller III, a former FBI director, who will talk about the practical measures to guard against cyber-attack and/or deal with such attacks.

We will publish a report on the seminar later this week.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article